Advertisement

The Power of Dialogue

  • Lauren Swayne Barthold
Chapter
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter examines research concerned with elucidating the weaknesses of relying on overt rational argumentation and demonstrates why, particularly in highly polarized situations, dialogue should be used as a precursor or supplement to forms of civic discourse that privilege rational argumentation and persuasion. One of the reasons that dialogue is so crucial for establishing and fostering the sort of civic discourse necessary for democratic citizens is that it can be utilized to “improve the soil,” so to speak, by helping audiences be more receptive to one another and to want to listen to the other, and it can also address some of the implicit cognitive structures that hinder the formation of a just, equal, and pluralistic society. Civic dialogue can help attenuate some of the cognitive biases that frequently show up in explicit rational argumentation and make us more hostile toward and less receptive to arguments coming from our opponents.

Keywords

Cognitive bias Implicit bias David Bohm Dialogue Cognitive dual processing 

Bibliography

  1. Antony, Louise M. 2016. Bias: Friend or Foe? Reflections on Saulish Skepticism. In Implicit Bias and Philosophy, ed. Michael Brownstein and Jennifer Saul, vol. 1, 157–190. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bago, B., and W. De Neys. 2017. Fast Logic? Examining the Time Course of Dual Process Theory. Cognition 158: 90–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin, James. 1998. The Fire Next Time. In Collected Essays, ed. Toni Morrison. New York: The Library of America.Google Scholar
  4. Bohm, David. 1996. On Dialogue. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Boudry, Maarten, Fabio Paglieri, and Massimo Pigliucci. 2015. The Fake, the Flimsy and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life. Argumentation 29 (4): 431–456.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carhart-Harris, Robin, et al. 2014. The Entropic Brain: A Theory of Conscious States Informed by Neuroimaging Research with Psychedelic Drugs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8 (20).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.000208.
  7. Coleman, Peter T. 2011. The Five Percent Conflict. 2011. The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  8. DiSalvo, David. 2011. What Makes your Brain Happy and Why You Should Do the Opposite. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  9. Durt, Christoph, Thomas Fuchs, and Christian Tewes. 2017. Embodiment, Enaction, and Culture: Investigating the Constitution of the Shared World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frankish, Keith. 2016. Playing Double: Implicit Bias, Dual Level, and Self-Control. In Implicit Bias and Philosophy, ed. Michael Brownstein and K. Jennifer Saul, vol. 1, 23–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1992b. Truth and Method. Second Revised Edition, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
  12. Haidt, J. 2001. The Emotional Tail and its Rational Dog: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review 108: 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  14. Haidt, Jonathan, and Fredrik Björklund. 2008. Social Intuitionists Answer Six Questions about Moral Psychology. In Moral Psychology (Vol 2). The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity, ed. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, 181–217. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  15. Huebner, Bryce. 2016. Implicit Bias, Reinforcement Learning, and Scaffolded Moral Cognition. In Implicit Bias and Philosophy, ed. Michael Brownstein and Jennifer Saul, vol. 1, 47–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hughes, Tim, and Amy Pollard. 2014. Changing Hats: How Deliberation Impacts Citizens. UK: Expert Sciencewise Resource Center.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2017. Interview with Krista Tippett, On Being podcast, October 5, 2017, unedited version, https://onbeing.org/programs/daniel-kahneman-why-we contradict-ourselves-and-confound-each-other-jan2019/
  19. Kruger, Justin, and David Dunning. 1999. Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (6): 1121–34.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121.
  20. Melnikoff, D.E., and J.A. Bargh. 2018. The Mythical Number Two. Trends in Cognitive Science 22: 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2011. Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34: 57–111.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Motyl, Matt, et al. 2011. Subtle Priming of Shared Human Experiences Eliminates Threat Induced Negativity Toward Arabs, Immigrants, and Peace-Making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4: 1179–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Navajas, Joaquin, Tamara Niella, Gerry Garbulsky, Bahador Bahrami, and Mariano Sigman. 2017. Aggregated Knowledge from a Small Number of Debates Outperforms the Wisdom of Large Crowds. Nature Human Behaviour 2: 126–132.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0273-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pennycook, Gordon, Wim De Neys, Jonathan St.B.T. Evans, Keith E. Stanovich, and Valerie A. Thompson. 2018. The Mythical Dual-Process Typology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22 (8).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.04.008.
  25. Pollan, Michael. 2018. How to Change your Mind. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  26. Rees, Clea F. 2016. A Virtue Ethics Response to Implicit Bias. In Implicit Bias and Philosophy, ed. Michael Brownstein and Jennifer Saul, vol. 2, 191–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sloman, Steven, and Philip Fernbach. 2017. The Knowledge Illusion. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  28. Stanovich, Keith E., and Maggie E. Toplak. 2012. Defining Features Versus Incidental Correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 Processing. Mind and Society 11: 3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-011-0093-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steele, Claude M. 2011. Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect us and What we Can Do. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  30. Trippas, Dries, Valerie A. Thompson, and Simon J. Handley. 2017. When Fast Logic Meets Slow Belief: Evidence for a Parallel-Processing Model of Belief Bias. Memory and Cognition 45: 539–552.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0680-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Bavel, Jay J., and Andrea Pereira. 2018. The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief. Trends in Cognitive Science 22 (3): 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren Swayne Barthold
    • 1
  1. 1.Liberal ArtsEndicott CollegeBeverlyUSA

Personalised recommendations