It's a Fact

Lisa K. Swallow is the co-founder and Executive Director of Crossing Party Lines, an organization focused on building bridges between people of differing political views. After moderating 100s of conversations across a broad array of subjects, she arrived at some insights on how to make political conversations, and other complex conversations, more productive and harmonious. She shares a few of them below.

***

These days, it can often seem as though we will never get anywhere in our political conversations because we don’t agree on the facts. Our lack of agreement over facts creates a great deal of confusion and even animosity. Fortunately, we can get around this problem.

After dedicating 8 years of my life to reducing toxic polarization, work that included running more than 350 conversations about politics, I have come to believe that the single most important thing we can do to improve communication across differences and work with others to arrive at a deeper understanding is to become more precise in the language we use to talk about facts. Here are three tips for making that shift.

Tip # 1:  Present facts in terms of what and how

Too often, we drop facts like bombs -- Bam!  Take that! -- As if hearing our facts will obliterate all of our opponent’s arguments making it obvious that we are right and, importantly, they are wrong. In reality, this just puts the receiver on the offensive. Facts alone don’t win arguments.  

1. It’s unlikely that they haven’t heard our facts before.
2. They probably have lots of other facts that tell a different story than we're telling.
3. It’s not the fact that matters as much as what we make of that fact. How we interpret the fact and how it relates to our other views.

Fact bombing erodes the trust that is necessary for a healthy exchange because it is experienced as an assault on the other person’s beliefs. We invest a lot in our beliefs, whether we realize it or not. We make major decisions based on them which shape our lives; we stake our reputations on these beliefs, and seek our stability in them. For most people, it is emotionally painful to have their beliefs challenged. Even if rationality demands we consider disconfirming facts, our emotions get the better of us. 

To preserve a sense of trust and still put forward our view, a more humble approach is beneficial.  An alternative to a fact bomb is to share both what the fact is and how we interpret the fact. This approach creates openings for the listener to become curious and invites a rational response. Here are some examples of what this looks like:

Fact Bombing:

Frank: Masks don’t work and there is plenty of evidence out there to prove it.

Tom:  Evidence? You mean fake news or conspiracy theory? Ha!

Sharing What and How:

Frank: I’ve read about several studies that show wearing a mask doesn’t protect you against COVID.

Tom: (Now Tom knows Frank is referring to studies about mask wearing.) I’m skeptical about those studies.  I’d like to see what they were measuring and what kind of masks they were testing.

OR

Tom: (Now Tom knows Frank believes the studies prove “masks don’t work.”) Do you really think the only reason for wearing a mask is to protect ourselves from COVID? 

In the examples above, Tom can ask about either the 'what' (studies), the 'how' (Frank believes they prove that masks don’t work), or both.  The more precise language doesn’t drive agreement or change Tom’s mind, but it does make him more likely to consider the facts and less likely to write Frank off as someone not worth talking to.  Here’s another example:

Typical presentation: Biden won the election fair and square.

More precise presentation: I found a website that listed all the lawsuits related to the 2020 election and that convinced me there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

Tip # 2: Indicate the type of fact

While many may insist that statements like “Trump is a racist.” or “Illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs.“ are patently false, the people making these statements are presenting information they believe to be true based on information they’ve encountered.  They are presenting their “facts.”  

 The word “fact” is commonly understood to mean something that has actually occurred or exists (objective fact). However, in colloquial use, it is often invoked to describe information that is simply said to be true or presented as having objective reality (subjective/personal fact.) 

I distinguish “subjective facts” from mere “opinions” primarily to emphasize a distinction in how subjective facts are experienced relative to other kinds of opinions. The word opinion can, and often is, associated with preference - “Spicy food is the best food!” Subjective facts - like “Elon is a shadow president now,” or “The elites hate America,” - are experienced as more “heavy realities” by those who believe them. They are the conclusions we draw from the available information; conclusions influenced by our values, beliefs, logic, and previous conclusions, and they shape our worldview in deep and consequential ways. 

Subjective facts are rarely built upon a single, verifiable piece of data. To be even more precise with your language, be clear about the kind of fact you are talking about. If it’s your subjective fact, make that clear by adding phrases like “in my opinion” or “I’ve come to the conclusion that…” 

At Crossing Party Lines, many people push back against our requests that they include phrases such as “I think,” “I believe,” or “it seems to me.”  They typically tell us “Everyone knows that’s what I meant.”  In the heat of a political discussion, though, nuance disappears and exchanges hinge on trust and credibility. Not including phrases such as these often leads listeners to judge people as “not even knowing the difference between fact and opinion!”

Accepting someone’s subjective fact requires a lot more trust than accepting their objective facts.

If you present an objective fact, the listener may need to do some fact checking before trusting it.

If you present a subjective fact, a listener who doesn’t already agree with it will need to consider both the objective facts that support your opinion and the logic you used to arrive at that conclusion. The conversation shifts from being about trusting the facts to trusting you.

Speakers who can clearly articulate their interpretation (“subjective facts”), along with the verifiable, objective facts that underlie the interpretation, make it much more difficult for listeners to write them off as ignorant, misinformed, or brainwashed. 

Speakers who also acknowledge that their facts are subjective come off as even more trustworthy and easy to work with because they leave room for the listener to have come to a different conclusion based on their own values and concerns, or exposure to different information.

Tip # 3: Be precise with language in general

If your goal in sharing your facts is to get a listener to consider and trust them, present them in the least ambiguous way possible.  Avoid broad strokes, generalizations, and labels. In these polarized times, the meanings of labels and generalizations tend to vary according to political orientation. 

The same word can conjure completely different images in different minds. The term “rights” can refer to rights protected by the constitution or basic human rights reflective of societal values.  “Government” could be interpreted as the Federal government, local or state institutions, or government in general.  Labels can be equally unclear because we may not know who fits within that label, or if we agree about the meaning, our biases may associate positive or negative connotations not shared by our conversation partner.

Rule of thumb: The more ubiquitous the term, the more likely it is that using it will result in conversations that go nowhere because participants are talking about two entirely different things without even knowing it!

Simply replace your labels and generalizations with the most precise description you can manage, and any listener will have a much better idea of what you are talking about:

If you want to talk about 'capitalism', which do you mean:

1. A free-market capitalism or free-enterprise economic system, or
2. Capitalism that is built on cronyism, state bail-outs, and unfair tax laws.

If you are talking about 'social justice', which do you mean:

1. Creating equality for all by encouraging respect and providing equal access to basic human needs, or
2. Forcing progressive values and a restrictive set of behaviors on others.

You can make talking about politics smoother and more productive by being more precise. You’ll come off as more thoughtful and more rational and prove you're a worthy companion on the quest for understanding.

Talking about politics is inherently difficult. On the one hand, we can put extra effort into being more precise with our language and arguments. This requires humility and a respect for the fact that others may think differently than we do. The payoff is a better chance of maintaining trust and having a productive dialogue about issues.

Or we can choose to avoid that effort, indulging in generalizations that devolve into aggressive fact-bombing. We erode trust and face the difficulty of conflict and acrimony. 

With every political conversation that crosses our path, we have the opportunity to make this choice. 

Lisa Swallow is the Co-Founder of Crossing Party Lines, where she helps Americans bridge divides through respectful, productive conversations across political differences.

All opinions expressed here are solely of the author and do not reflect the views of the author’s employer.