Advocacy 101: How to make an argument for bike/ped that actually convinces your opponents
PSMag recently posted an interesting article about how to make an argument in a political discussion that actually has a chance of persuading people on the opposite side of the issue.
The basic idea is to make an argument that appears weaker (to you) but that reinforces, rather than undermines, the other person's core beliefs:
The arguments people make are those that appear the strongest to themselves and the people who already agree with them. But such arguments tend to be meaningless to people who disagree.
How does this happen?
It starts with the universal desire to protect against threats to your self-image or self-worth. People are driven to view themselves in a positive light, and they will interpret information and take action in ways that preserve that view. The need to maintain self-worth is one reason we attribute our failures to external factors (bad luck), but our success to internal factors (skill.) . . .
Because political beliefs are connected to deeply held values, information about politics can be very threatening to your self-image. Imagine coming across information that contradicts everything you've ever believed about the efficacy of Medicare, for example. If you're wrong about such an important policy, what else might you be wrong about? And if you're wrong about a bunch of things, you're obviously not as smart or as good or as worthwhile a person as you previously believed. These are painful thoughts, and so we evaluate information in ways that will help us to avoid them.
It follows that our openness to information depends on how it affects self-worth, and a number of studies bear this out. One line of research has found that self-affirmation—a mental exercise that increases feelings of self-worth—makes people more willing to accept threatening information. The idea is that by raising or "affirming" your self-worth, you can then encounter things that lower your self-worth without a net decrease. The affirmation and the threat effectively cancel each other out, and a positive image is maintained. . . .
Research by Nyhan and Reifler on what they've termed the "backfire effect" also suggests that the more a piece of information lowers self-worth, the less likely it is to have the desired impact. Specifically, they have found that when people are presented with corrective information that runs counter to their ideology, those who most strongly identify with the ideology will intensify their incorrect beliefs. . . .
The arguments that are most threatening to opponents are viewed as the strongest and cited most often. Liberals are baby-killers while conservatives won't let women control their own body. Gun control is against the constitution, but a lack of gun control leads to innocent deaths. Each argument is game-set-match for those already partial to it, but too threatening to those who aren't. We argue like boxers wildly throwing powerful haymakers that have no chance of landing. What if instead we threw carefully planned jabs that were weaker but stood a good chance of connecting?
Imagine that instead of arguing about the quantity of gun deaths, for example, you make the case that universal background checks will allow a mom with two young kids to feel less nervous about the strange, reclusive man who lives down the street. Now your point is much less threatening. People will never believe they help bring about the deaths of innocents, but they can believe they failed to consider the peace of mind of some person they don't know. The argument is objectively weaker, but it's more likely to be below the threat threshold that leads to automatic rejection. It might actually be considered.
Does this idea work in advocating for bicycling, walking, and trails?
The examples in the article are all about politics. But do the same concepts apply when talking to elected leaders and officials, or even friends and family, about bicycle and pedestrian issues?
Here, we are not necessarily talking about right/left or Democrat/Republican differences. Bicycling, walking, running, and trails and "bike-partisan" after all. And we know that about equal numbers of people from both political parties enjoy bicycling, walking, running and trails--though the reasons they do so may differ.
Nevertheless, when talking about bicycle, pedestrian, or trails issues, many of the same concepts apply: If you are an avid cyclist, an avid walker, an avid runner, or an avid hiker, you most certainly have much life experience in this area. Perhaps a good part of your identity and many of your friends are involved in these same activities.
When you talk to someone who is not a cyclist, walker, runner, or hiker, their perspective, their identity, and their social network is probably much different. When you take the straight-ahead approach and introduce the evidence that is strongest and most convincing to you--the car-free bicycle, pedestrian, and transit advocate, or the serious recreational cyclist who rides nine centuries every year--you may find that your arguments undermine the long and firmly held ideas of the elected leader about health, fitness, and transportation. It goes beyond politics to lifestyle, personality, and spending choices.
We have seen this time and time again--when really enthusiastic bicycle & pedestrian citizen-advocates speak to their elected leaders, say at Capitol Day or the National Bike Summit, sometimes their legislative requests and examples backfire, creating resistance among the elected leaders rather than cooperation.
Just for example: Is an argument about the inherent evil of SUVs going to go over well with a person who has recently spent multiple thousand of dollars buying and SUV? An attack on the evils of suburban style city planning going to go over well with a person whose family and firends all live in a suburb? A diatribe on the problems cause by too much driving in U.S. society going to be accepted by a rural farmer who, by necessity, drives most everywhere?
To become the most effective advocate, you might consider the points outlined in the article and accompanying research:
- The most powerful research, facts, figures, or examples to you might not be the most powerful or effective in convincing the other person, who is not a cyclist, walker, runner, or hiker
- You can become more effective by finding a common ground and then reinforce, rather than undermining, the other person's worldview
- Many times you have more success developing support for a 'compromise' position that builds and improves on the experiences of ordinary people with bicycling and walking--even though you 'know' from your own experience that a different, faster, more complete, and more radical solution would actually be better.
Example: Advocating for more funding for bicycling and walking in Missouri
Just for example, we have made tremendous progress on including funding for biking, walking, and transit in the newly proposed Missouri transportation funding plan. We didn't get everything we wanted--and of course, neither did anyone else. But we made progress because we were able to join a large coalition of people and groups with a common concern--the lack of funding for Missouri transportation.
Our particular concern was far more specific: The lack of funding for bicycling, walking, and trails in Missouri. Due to constitutional restrictions, Missouri has never been able to spend even a dime of its transportation funding on bicycling, walking, or trails. This is the single biggest reason Missouri roads, highways, and communities have been built out in the past 70 years without needed bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.
That was our concern. Because we identified that as a primary issue, we were able to join together in mutual support with other groups who also felt that a lack of transportation funding in Missouri was and issue--in their case, the issue was lack of funding for roads, highways, transit, ports, railroads, and so on.
But we made far more progress when we found an issuse of common concern that we could work together on, than when we spent our time and energy trying to undermine their most deeply held objectives.
The result: If the proposed Missouri transportation fundign proposal passes, it will be a change in Missouri's transportation direction as dramatic as when Congress changed the federal transportation funding direction in 1991 with ISTEA, for the first time including funding for biking and walking in the billions of dollars of federal transportation funding.
The Missouri funding proposal will do the same for Missouri, doubling the amount of transportation money available for bicycling, walking, and trails, and changing the policies and direction of MoDOT and other transportation agencies in a fundamental way.
Why reach across to the other side?
Many times our supporters ask us why we are advocating for 'compromise' solution X when we all know that Y is better, cheaper, and in the end, more effective.
The answer is, politics in the art of the possible. It doesn't matter if Y is better, cheaper, and more effective if it is too far a reach among our elected leaders to even consider it to be possible.
Take the time to connect with people where they are and we can and will slowly bring them to where we want them to be. It takes patience, long-term goals, and the willingness to accept progress--and the fact that in politics, progress invariably involves the sort of compromise that means getting part of what you want, not everything you want.
The research behind the ideas in this article: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
More about bike/ped advocacy on our resources page and more Advocacy 101 articles.
- 2011
- 2013
- about
- adt
- adventure cycling
- advocacy
- advocacy 101
- advocate
- bicycle
- bicycling
- Bike
- biking
- Capitol Day
- Capitol Day 2011
- city
- congress
- cyclist
- exercise
- federal transportation
- first
- fitness
- form
- funding
- game
- health
- issues
- istea
- join
- kids
- legislative
- missouri
- missouri bicycle federation
- mobikefed
- modot
- national bike summi
- national bike summit
- pedestrian
- plan
- planning
- points
- policy
- politics
- research
- resource
- resources
- rides
- roads
- running
- rural
- studies
- success
- tags
- trails
- transit
- transportation
- transportation funding
- walking
Join MoBikeFed's Advocacy Network
Working together we make a real difference! Join our advocacy network:
Related pages
Current topics...
Archives...
Want better bicycling and walking in Missouri?
We rely on the support of members like you. Please join, renew, or donate today.
- Home
- JOIN/DONATE
- News/Info
- Missouri Bicycling, Running, Trails
- Bicycle Skills and Safety
- Missouri Bike/Ped Law
- Clubs and Organizations
- Bike Shops
- Running Shops
- Bicycling, Running, Trails-related Businesses
- Ride, Run, Walk, Hike, Triathlon, and Events Calendars
- Bicycles on Amtrak
- Maps and Routes
- Trails and Trail Maps
- IBikeMO.org
- Planning a Missouri bicycle trip
- Gravel and Bikepacking Maps & Routes
- Bicycle & Touring Routes
- Advocacy
- Campaigns
- Our Legislative Platform
- Complete Streets
- Statewide Rock Island Trail
- Statewide Trail Vision - Quad State Trail
- Bicycle Friendly Missouri
- Walk Friendly Missouri
- Safe Routes to School
- MoDOT funding crisis
- High Priority Bike/Ped Project List
- Anti-harassment laws in cities & statewide
- Updating the basic bicycle law
- Our Vision for MoDOT
- Our Vision for MPOs/RPCs
- Our Vision for Cities & Counties
- Bicycle, pedestrian, trails plans across MO
- Protecting Vulnerable Road Users
- Vision Zero
- Missouri Trail Towns
- Store
- About