In efforts to encourage understanding and openness on Inauguration Day, we wrote a pair of simple, short essays. One is designed to capture the views of the majority of Clinton supporters, the other, the views of the majority of Trump supporters. We had 80 supporters from each group read the corresponding essay and rate whether they agreed or disagreed with each sentence, and whether they agreed with the essay overall.
After adjustments based on the feedback we received, we published the two essays below, with at least 50% of the corresponding group agreeing to each sentence (see color coding) and high levels of overall agreement to the whole essays (see the bottom of the infographic – 84% overall agreement for the Clinton Essay, 94% for the Trump essay, though the subjects were not from a nationally representative sample).
Our thinking was that trying to simulate the perspective of both sides is one of the best ways to check your understanding. And that understanding both sides is useful for many reasons (epistemic, altruistic, strategic), even if you won’t ever support or agree with them.
If you’re interested in learning more, this Fast Company article discusses our motivation and approach:
https://www.fastcompany.com/3066609/try-this-exercise-in-radical-empathy-to-minimize-conflict
Comments