Some
of us convened watch
parties and others deliberately did not
tune in.
Either
way, the June 27 presidential debate was the
real start of the election season, when more
Americans start to pay attention. It’s when
partisan rhetoric runs hot and emotions run
high.
It’s
also a chance for us, as members of a
democratic republic. How? By setting
expectations for ourselves and our leaders. A
peek at our neurobiology can help us make this
debate something we learn from rather than
something that divides us further.
As
humans, we’re wired to pay close attention to
what others say and do, because we want to
know how well we fit into our group. But it’s
mostly our subconscious that does the
listening. We’re rarely consciously aware of
what we’re absorbing.
We
can change that a bit by learning how we’re
primed to hear the “other side,” and then
challenge ourselves to understand the election
rationally rather than only emotionally.
We’re
so susceptible to priming that even someone
else’s word choice can influence our behavior
without our knowing. One study found that
exposing people to rude or aggressive
words before having a conversation (words like
“power” and “fierce”) makes people interrupt.
But if you offer words like “help,” “harmony,”
and “fair,” people behave politely. Just
hearing a few words can shape our behavior for
good or bad.
Some
words are particularly contagious because they
capture our attention – moral emotional words
like shame, disgust, and empathy that help us
make ethical judgments. As Psychologist
Jay Van Bavel And His Team Found,
tweets that contain moral emotional language
(“Check out this statement from the debate –
he should be ashamed!”) get retweeted much
more than neutral or even positive moral
emotional language.
Also
at play in election season are blindspots
built into our brains – shortcuts that help us
process information more quickly. One
blindspot is the fact that, essentially, we’re
hardwired to have double standards. When the
guy from the other team is caught taking
bribes, we’re outraged by this person’s
evilness (cue the moral emotional retweets!).
When the guy from our side does the same
thing, we make all sorts of excuses for why it
was a one-off and not so bad.
So
how can we use this understanding of our
neurobiology?
At
a minimum, we can be aware of the effect of
candidates’ negative moral emotional language
on us and not repost it. We can also make sure
we hold our guy to the same standards we hold
the other guy.
More
constructively, we can demand better language
of our leaders. Some countries have “keep it
clean” pledges in which both candidates agree
not to use hate-filled language about the
other side. What if we asked our candidates,
at all levels, to do that?
Another
idea is confirmed by a 2021 Study.
Simply seeing leaders treat each other
warmly across a divide (laughing together,
parting with a hug) increases our own feeling
of warmth towards members of the other party.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox launched the Disagree
Better Initiative,
featuring videos of governors from both
parties talking together. We can support (and
vote for) officials who build relationships
across the aisle.
Wouldn’t
it be a relief if we saw our
leaders
simply getting along from time to
time?