HOW FRANK SHOULD WE BE TO THE MAGA PEOPLE?
I’m not sure if anyone I’ve listened to has really expounded on this to my liking.
My verse today is an outpouring of frustration and concern. Although it’s difficult to gage certain family and friends who are still Republicans at this time, exactly the boundaries of their beliefs, and their predispositions to approve of violence in order the maintain minority rule, I’m still apprehensive about this all. I understand fully the average social media posting MAGA follower, or at least I’m more certain about what they do and might do. With family and friends it is much more difficult. So I am surveying the landscape of using frank language with these folks. And I’ve looked into quotes on frankness. I’ve tried to find some pointers in how to effectively engage with the MAGA man or woman. I wrote my usual acrostic free verse and made an image of ‘frankness’ as found on Twitter today. I came up with three examples of frank communications, done without antagonism, I write a little about the effectiveness of repeating lies, and I end with Jimmy Carter.
I start with my verse.
And what a search of ‘frankness’ on Twitter reveals. There really is no mention of agonizing over communications with MAGA in a frank way. This was not surprising, as we have been in this situation for years now, with little in the way of cracks showing in the dam of Trump support. Below is what I found on Twitter.
Difference between frank and honest
Frank 1 : marked by free, forthright, and sincere expression
Honest 1 a : free from fraud or deception
Although frank has an element of honesty, its basic meaning is to be uninhibited in what is conveyed. That is, what the speaker says won't be filtered to cater to the listener's sensitivities.
Honesty can be expressed more circumspectly, but when someone starts a sentence with "Honestly, ..." you can expect a rather frank assessment.
Some of my usual quoting. This particular subject has been on the minds of many, mostly of authors, over the last centuries.
“Frankness should beget frankness.”
— F. W. Ricord.
Frederick William Ricord (born in Guadeloupe, West Indies, 7 October 1819; died in Newark, New Jersey, 12 August 1897) was a noted United States author.
“Impertinence [lack of respect; rudeness] is one thing; frankness another.”
— F. H. Converse
Frank H. Converse c. 1887, American writer of fiction such as In search of an Unknown Race, found free on Google Books
“It is the ordinary practice of the world to be frank with those civilities that cost nothing.”
— L'Estrange.
Sir Roger L'Estrange (17 December 1616 – 11 December 1704) was an English pamphleteer, author, courtier, and press censor. Throughout his life L'Estrange was frequently mired in controversy and acted as a staunch ideological defender of King Charles II's regime during the Restoration era.
“The frank man is under no restraint; his lips are ever ready to give utterance to the dictates of his heart; he has no reserve.”
— M. Quintine.
QUINTINE, MICHAEL, born about 1600; an English author, ( London, 1641.)
“There is nothing which all mankind venerate and admire so much as frankness; it exhibits at once a strength of character and integrity of purpose in which all are willing to confide.”
— W. Weir
WEIR, WILLIAM, born in Edinburgh, 1802; a German writer[?]; died, 1858. I found mention of him as a journalist and writer of a series of unsigned books. I’m unsure about him being German.
“The ablest men that ever were have all had an openness and frankness of dealing.”
— Lord Bacon.
Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban[a] PC QC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626), also known as Lord Verulam, was an English philosopher and statesman who served as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England under King James I. Bacon led the advancement of both natural philosophy and the scientific method and his works remained influential even in the late stages of the Scientific Revolution.
“We appreciate frankness from those who like us. Frankness from others is called insolence [rude and disrespectful behavior].
— Andre Maurois
André Maurois (born Émile Salomon Wilhelm Herzog; 26 July 1885 – 9 October 1967) was a French author. When World War II began, he was appointed the French Official Observer attached to the British General Headquarters. In this capacity he accompanied the British Army to Belgium. He knew personally the main politicians in the French Government, and on 10 June 1940 he was sent on a mission to London. After the Armistice ended that mission, Maurois was demobilized and traveled from England to Canada. He wrote of these experiences in his book, Tragedy in France. Later in World War II he served in the French army and the Free French Forces.
“Frankness invites frankness.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ralph Waldo Emerson (May 25, 1803 – April 27, 1882), who went by his middle name Waldo, was an American essayist, lecturer, philosopher, abolitionist, and poet who led the transcendentalist movement of the mid-19th century. He was seen as a champion of individualism and a prescient critic of the countervailing pressures of society. Friedrich Nietzsche considered him "the most gifted of the Americans" and Walt Whitman referred to him as his "master".
“My dream of politics all my life has been that it is the common business, that it is something we owe to each other to understand and discuss with absolute frankness.”
— Woodrow Wilson
Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 – February 3, 1924) was an American politician and academic who served as the 28th president of the United States from 1913 to 1921. A member of the Democratic Party, Wilson served as the president of Princeton University and as the governor of New Jersey before winning the 1912 presidential election. As president, Wilson changed the nation's economic policies and led the United States into World War I in 1917. He was the leading architect of the League of Nations, and his progressive stance on foreign policy came to be known as Wilsonianism. "The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation ... until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country." Quotation from Woodrow Wilson's History of the American People as reproduced in the film The Birth of a Nation
Wilson was born and raised in the U.S. South by parents who were committed supporters of both slavery and the Confederacy. Academically, Wilson was an apologist for slavery and the Redeemers, and one of the foremost promoters of the Lost Cause mythology. Wilson was the first Southerner elected president since Zachary Taylor in 1848 and the only former subject of the Confederacy. Wilson's election was celebrated by southern segregationists.
I was interested in psychological research under the heading of being frank with others. I did not readily come across anything which seemed applicable. I redirected my attention to the Oncologist who must be frank about the end of life with his patient. I assumed surely there was some kind of approved method based upon codes of conduct or Hippocratic oath to be found online. I found the following study from 2008 on this subject to get an idea of the doctor’s professional methods employed. I must say that for this the doctor apparently follows their own methods with the individual patient in mind. However, a large number of oncologists will give the prognosis regardless of the patient’s preferences.
I’m uncertain if the information below can be related to conversation with a MAGA family member, but perhaps there is some usefulness to compare the two human interactions as both are undoubtedly difficult for both parties.
What Are Terminally Ill Cancer Patients Told About Their Expected Deaths? A Study of Cancer Physicians’ Self-Reports of Prognosis Disclosure
Found in National Library of Medicine
Christopher K. Daugherty and Fay J. Hlubocky
Published online 2008 Nov 24.
We believe that one of the most significant findings of this study are the data of cancer physicians describing themselves as routinely telling their terminally ill patients they will eventually die of their disease (even when a patient's prognosis involves as much as 1 year of estimated time left to live). However, although relatively uniform in respect to their self-reports of disclosing eventual death, physicians were relatively divided in their reports as to whether they provide a specific estimate about the amount of time they believe their patients may have to live. Also of note was the fact that, although a substantial number of physicians described themselves as eliciting and respecting a patient's preferences for prognostic information, many physicians (approximately 40%) reported that patients should always know their prognoses, presumably even if it goes against patients’ preferences for this information. Perhaps crucial to understanding why physicians believe they should disclose a terminal prognosis, potentially even in the face of a patient's expressed preferences to not know his or her prognosis, are data analyses revealing that medical oncologists’ own preferences for an estimate of time left to live if they had terminal cancer were strongly associated with self-reports of providing prognostic estimates or time frames to patients. Thus, physicians’ own personal preferences for prognostic information may influence prognosis communication even to patients who may not want to know their prognosis. Specific demographic characteristics (eg, older age, being Jewish) may also influence communication practices. In addition, clinical factors seem to potentially influence communication practices because busier physicians were more likely to report more direct (if not forceful) prognosis communication with their terminally ill patients.
Limited data suggest that most advanced cancer patients desire at least some information about their prognoses, and our data describe oncologists as disclosing to the majority of their terminally ill patients that they will die. This would seem to contradict the wealth of data that describe many advanced cancer patients as not understanding their prognoses. This apparent contradiction may be better understood by recognizing the potential differences between what physicians believe they are disclosing and how patients actually understand this information. In addition, it should be noted that there is considerable variability in described patient preferences regarding the extent, format, and timing of this information, and at least one study has suggested that, as patients get closer to the end of their lives, their preference for prognostic information declines. In the end, further research is needed to examine how closely matched individual physician practices regarding prognosis communication are to actual patient preferences.
In conclusion, virtually all medical oncologists report telling their advanced cancer patients they will die of their disease. When cancer physicians do not tell their patients of their terminal prognoses, they frequently tell family or friends. Although most medical oncologists report not providing specific prognostic time frames or medical estimates of time left to live to their patients, most report wanting such a time frame communicated if they were faced with life-ending disease themselves. The vast majority of medical oncologists report that they are satisfied with their communication practices and believe their patients are satisfied as well. They also report either no prior training in prognosis communication or that their prior training was inadequate. Ultimately, US medical oncologists describe their communication practices as divided between either respecting their terminally ill patients’ (perceived or elicited) preferences for prognostic information or providing such information because they believe their patients need to know their prognoses.
I came across the “Illusory Truth Effect” in my research studies while hoping to find research on the propensity of people to always want to know the truth. I’ll briefly show excerpts from a 2022 study. The Hitler (or Trump) repeating the big lie came to mind looking at this study. There is a Wikipedia entry for this subject. This all is of course quite easy to understand, and a right wing with years of repeated talking points, and a fellow like Trump with over 30,000 public lies while in office certainly takes little imagination to understand the phenomenon. It’s a no-brainer backed up by solid research. And it is not about to end any time soon for obvious reasons in our body politic.
Cognition
Volume 236, July 2023,
Cognition
The illusory truth effect leads to the spread of misinformation
Valentina Vellani, Sarah Zheng, Dilay Ercelik & Tali Sharot.
The “Illusory truth effect” - that is whether participants are more likely to perceive repeated information as true.
Other factors can, and certainly do, drive information-sharing, for example - motivation. Nonetheless, accuracy is one driving factor.
We pose that if (i) people on average tend to share information they believe is true more than information they believe is false and (ii) repetition increases perceived accuracy, then repeated information will be shared more than new information because people will believe it is accurate.
A single previous exposure to misinformation can increase perceived accuracy even when the information is inconsistent with the participant's ideology.
In particular, we demonstrate that the well-known ‘illusory truth effect’ fuels the spread of misinformation. It has been suggested that a single exposure to repeated information boosts its accuracy perception.
Specifically, our data reveal that people are more likely to share information they have been previously exposed to. We show that the relationship between repetition and sharing is mediated by perceived accuracy. That is, repeated information seems to be shared more because people judge repeated information as more accurate. Our results help explain why fake news spread so easily among the population. Fake-news is often constructed to be appealing to the reader and consequently is more likely to be repeated by different sources. Results of our study suggest that repeated exposure to misinformation will create a vicious circle in which misinformation will be perceived as true and therefore shared more. These results stress the importance of quickly tagging misinformation as such. If repeated exposure biases people to share news more, the longer information circulates, the higher the probability that it will be considered as true and further shared with others. In sum, we show that even a single previous exposure to information will increase the likelihood of sharing by enhancing perceived accuracy. This will create a vicious cycle of exposure – increase belief – sharing – exposure - increase belief - which in turn can influence actions.
I found reference to dehoaxing laboratory participants who have been purposefully deceived for experimental reasons. I recall long ago I took part in a psychology experiment at the University of Montana, with the pretext that I was to monitor my brain alpha waves. The alpha wave device was false and I recalled being debriefed after the experiment, I had not ever doubted the validity of the experiment while involved in it. Maybe there is some advice in the formal process recommended.
From the Oregon State University research website.
Dehoaxing
Dehoaxing is the process of convincing subjects who have been deceived as part of a research study that they have in fact been deceived.
The purpose of dehoaxing is to prevent possible future harm to the subject. For example, subjects may be given false pretest scores in order to test the effect of these scores on subsequent tests of motivation levels. If subjects believe that the false scores represent their true abilities, their level of self-esteem may become jeopardized. In cases such as these, simply informing the subjects that they were deceived and that the pretest scores were false may not be sufficient. In addition to informing the subjects, some form of demonstration may be needed to convince subjects that they were deceived and thereby diminish the undesirable effects of the study.
Goals of Dehoaxing
To repair the breach of informed consent created by the deception
To remove any confusion or defuse any tensions that might have been generated by the deception
To repair any breach of trust that has occurred not only between investigator and subject, and preserve the public’s trust in research endeavors
Dehoax with dignity and an unconditional positive regard for the range of emotions subjects may experience in response to the deception.
To convince the subject the behavior was due to situational determinants within the experiment rather than to dispositional determinants within the subject. This is also referred to as desensitization.
And for considering the dilemma in the context of cult deprogramming, at least that is what I googled, it seems that deprogramming is something of the past. Regardless, here is some information and advice which to consider. This from a February 2021 article in *Undark.
“Number one: Do not confront. It absolutely does not work,” said Steve Eichel, a clinical psychologist in Delaware and specialist in cult recovery. And number two: “Maintain your relationship with that person no matter what.”
Gordon Pennycook, a social psychologist at the University of Regina in Canada, also argues that, while it may seem to relatives that someone has changed suddenly as they fall down a rabbit hole, such accounts typically misapprehend the sequence of events. “It’s not that their minds are being taken over,” he said. “Their minds were susceptible to it in the first place. What’s been taken over is their interests, their focus, and so on.” People who gravitate to conspiracies, Pennycook says, have consistent personality traits that make those ideas appealing. “It’s not the conspiracies that are causing them to be overly aggressive and resistant to alternative narratives,” Pennycook said. Instead, those traits are “the reason they are so strongly believing in the conspiracies.”
Megan Goodwin, a scholar of American minority religions at Northeastern University, said she has heard people describe outlets like Fox News as brainwashing. “People who are watching it are adults who are making choices to consume that media,” said Goodwin. Similarly, she said, “the people who mounted an armed insurrection to take over the Capitol are adults that made choices.” An idea like deprogramming, she added, “makes it sound like, okay, well they’ve had their agency and their faculties taken from them.” She sees no evidence that’s the case, even if, she said, that narrative can be comforting. “They make shitty choices,” she said. “People you love are going to make shitty choices.”
Ryan [cult specialist from Philadelphia] stressed that interventions are rare; usually, the extent of their work is helping families develop strategies to maintain a relationship. When Ryan and the family do decide on an intervention, it involves months of preparation. They sometimes employ elaborate ruses to coax the person into the room for a conversation with their relatives and Ryan.
Whether such methods are reliably effective is difficult to ascertain, and, practitioners acknowledge, there is little research on outcomes. “You can be simplistic, and lucky, and get the person out,” said Langone, the ICSA [International Cultic Studies Association] head, stressing that people’s reasons for joining and leaving groups are often highly individualized. “There are not good statistics on the effectiveness of exit counseling,” Langone said.
During a conversation in late January, Ryan estimated that, within the past year, he had consulted for roughly 20 families dealing with loved ones who had gone deep into QAnon or a similar community. He has not recommended formal interventions to any of them. “The basis of what we would recommend is to stay connected, and how to do that,” said Ryan. “Because to influence someone, you have to have a relationship with them.”
*Undark is a non-profit, editorially independent digital magazine exploring the intersection of science and society. It is published with generous funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, through its Knight Science Journalism Fellowship Program at MIT.
So I now realize that the three approaches of dealing with family and friends frankly, of the ontologist, the dehoaxing of psychological research participants and of the actual work of those who are specialists in cult behavior may or may not be instructive in my topic. It seems that some important factors have been identified in these examples. Maintaining a relationship is paramount, or at least that is my impression from what I’ve read. I think I’ll be better prepared for the future conversation which undoubtedly will arise. I’ll try to be frank, however.
Now for a final diversion which may be worth reading and knowing. How to ask questions to your MAGA person according to this 2018 article in Time. The principle here might be of use to the reticent person when hashing out details of their beliefs.
Why do people respond so differently depending on how a question is phrased? It’s because some questions reveal more information than others. Presumptive questions communicate that the question asker already knows something, so it is best for the respondents to come clean and at least tell their side of the story by disclosing the information rather than be found to be lying. In a mock job-recruitment study, participants acting as employers were given a backstory about their company with both relevant and irrelevant details about the company’s history and current programs. When asked a presumptive question, participants often admitted that there had been complaints of junior-level associates feeling abused, but used the admission as an opportunity to explain that such abusive practices were typical in the industry or to pivot to a discussion of solutions that the company has started to implement.
But when questions are more general or less presumptive, respondents may figure that the question asker is not comfortable pursuing that information, and the respondent can more easily change topics without getting caught. For example, when asked a general question about the corporate culture in that same mock job-recruitment study, many respondents ignored the far more relevant complaints of abuse and instead excitedly talked about the introduction of “Casual Jeans Fridays” around the office.
It seemed that I was required to understand my duty in confronting in a frank manner the MAGA I will come across. It’s easy, and perhaps safer to not delve into political discussion, but I foresee being forced into it. I searched Jimmy Carter’s quotes hoping to address this need. This seems a good jumping off place for this discussion. I wish to end with something uplifting. No man is better to rely upon for this than Jimmy Carter.
“In our democracy, the only title higher and more powerful than that of president is the title of citizen. It is every citizen’s right and duty to help shape the future legacy of our nation.”
— Jimmy Carter, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal
“I have one life and one chance to make it count for something... My faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I am, whenever I can, for as long as I can with whatever I have to try to make a difference.”
— Jimmy Carter
AND
“The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices.”
— Jimmy Carter
So I spent the day researching, writing, and making images. I learned quite a lot, but mostly verified what I’ve heard from other sources, like the three shows on Progressive Voices and MSNBC. I’m hoping I brought something worthwhile to the table, to the feast in these troubled times. Thanks for reading. And a quote I just found which I liked.
61st Posting, July 29, 2023