30 thoughts on “How to have better political conversations | Robb Willer

  1. 5:07
    "everyone should have the right to love whoever they choose…"
    My sentence: "….Unless it is illegal."

  2. I like how in the end he used what he was trying to tell. There were key words specific for liberals and conservationist. This was a good talk.

  3. This is a great way for people who want to join political discussions and know what to say. Keep up the great content!

  4. I like how he talks about turning conservatives into liberals but not the other way. He showed his hand.

  5. Best way to settle it. Split the country in 2, and see which version of the country thrives, and with one implodes. 😉

  6. He’s assuming that liberals and conservatives have different but equally valid roles in politics. But conservatives are more likely to hold factually incorrect beliefs, whereas liberals are usually closer to being right. Just look at which side usually has the facts on their side regarding fiscal, social, and environmental policy!

  7. I think it's more like the movie independence day. we will only ever learn to work together as a human race when we are getting completely annihilated by aliens.

  8. Does anyone actually think that they're on one side of a zombie apocolypse movie? Is America genuinely this polarised?! I'm calling bullshit.

  9. My question is, what if their moral viewpoint is abhorrant to you? Making an argument on policy by appealing to their moral code would be encouraging that moral code, would it not?

  10. I feel your study had a major flaw. You said that with the purity essay more people both agreed with conservation, and believed in global warming. You assume the essay which said nothing about global warming was the cause, instead of determining if the fact that group already believed in global warming was the variable itself. I do not believe I have met a fellow conservative that has changed their opinion on global warming without being given good evidence about it. I strongly believe that your study was more heavily affected by the people reading the purity essay than the essay itself affected them.

  11. Interesting talk. My main issue is that there were no examples from a conservative point of view reframed as to convince liberals, only the other way around. No stats about doing the environmental study the other way around. I'm really interested in how you could reframe issues like gay marriage, environmental protection or abortion in a way to convince liberal people.

    If one set of people rely heavily on statistics and studies and the other side relies on the way they feel about things, one side might be easier to convince by reframing than the other. Just my two cents, happy that people are at least trying to bring actual discussions to the table.

  12. would like to see a talk like this considering the values of other countries and their politics; the us is interesting but so is the rest of the world

  13. This guy either misunderstands or is intentionally misrepresenting conservatism.

    I didn't hear the words "freedom" or "liberty" once.

  14. 90% of viewers probably missed Rob Willer's conclusion where he tied Conservative & Liberal P.O.V.s (patriotism, purity, equality ,etc.) previously mentioned to persuade either of the political parties in favor of changing the nation.

  15. 12 minutes to tell me what the ideological values of liberalism and conservatism are. Zero value TED talk. The entire video could be summed up by saying, "Stop seeing ideologies as a divide." What kind of an idiot needs twelve minutes to have that explained to them?

  16. Woah! At 11:00 he literally puts that research into action!

    He uses moral vocab to tap into BOTH liberal and conservative values. He uses all these loaded words, and it works:

    *hate
    *ugly
    *corrupt
    *fabric of our society
    *we owe our country
    *afford
    *we owe each other

  17. Step 1: Open the platform for discussion (which you claim to stand for) instead of disabling comments and bullying any content creators that disagree with you.

  18. 1) Feminists, SJWs, BLMs. Just because someone has different opinions, dont instantly call them bigots,racists,nazis,homophobes,whateverphobes,….. etc. It only shows, that you have no arguments.
    2) White privilege does not exist. Its only a tool to silence us, right ?
    3) Evidence, logic. Use it, please.
    4) Dont make yourself look like IDIOTS. I am looking at you, half naked monsters, that give away free dildos ( btw, can i get one ? )
    5) If you so want equal rights, then why do you want certain ethnics to have benefits over other ethnics ? As well , if you want equality, then basically you are telling us, that we can hit women ?
    6) there is no wage gap between genders.
    7) there are laws you know.
    8) there is free speech, if you dont like , for example. Milo , then dont listen to him, but let other people listen to him. You can speak publicly as well…… the only difference is in the amount of people willing to listen to you.
    9) Those road blocks/entrance blocks/……only show how intelligent you are.
    10) Just because we support Trump doesnt mean, that we agree 100% on everything he says or does.
    11) There is no rape culture in western society. But it is in Muslim society.
    12) There is no racism in western society.
    13) There is no homophobia in western society. But it is in Muslim society.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    and the list goes on.

  19. Since the Industrial Age, Whites put them self to such high moral pedestal and think they are the most civilized race, they start lecturing each other "I'm more right in my choice of that particular view and choices."
    This political divide is just the beginning.

  20. Good job TED, 4 minutes into this vid and the entire premise is something I profoundly disagree with, and as I see it, is divisive in and of itself. You pigeon hole each side according to their views, then lecture me about trying to persuade someone’s views without offending their moral values, but at no point to you examine the moral values themselves, and where those values come from, nor do you examine how those moral values lead to those political views. Do you think that the two issues are separate? There is a divide in this country, and you, like so many others have missed the source of it.

    What could be more divisive than a study that proclaims liberals care about equality and keeping people from harm, and conservatives believe in respect for authority and moral purity.

    That statement is by itself a means to justify hatred from one group to another. ‘Study shows: conservatives like to wave flags, but don’t care about equality, and don’t give a rat’s rear end about the amount of harm that befalls unfortunate people.’

    Sorry, the divide is not along the lines that they laid out. “Liberals believe in equality, fairness, care and protection from harm” while “Conservatives believe in loyalty, patriotism, authority, and morality”. These are merely examples of how different moral values manifest themselves in a political philosophy. Maybe the first thing you should do in your studies, is ask conservatives simply if they believe in the former, and ask liberals if they believe in the latter. I presume there is a large overlap in the answers that would be given, yet the two groups of words mean profoundly different things to each group when considered from their moral foundation. We all believe in equality and care, and loyalty and respect for authority when we define those terms for ourselves, but without defining terms from each group’s point of view those concepts are little more than mindless pablum. For example, to conservatives, equality means equal treatment under the law, morally, this is manifested in government and its policies in a passive manner. To liberals, equality means something different, i.e. equality through the activities of government, and is manifested in policies that way. We do not agree on what exactly “equality” is, let alone how to use government to achieve it as a political end.

    You didn’t dig deep enough. It isn’t as simple as just speaking to people in a manner that uses their own values to persuade them, it would be better if we attempted to understand why they hold the values that they do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *