1/ I think a lot of influential people fail to recognize just how much their agenda setting power *itself* constrains *their* ability to see other perspectives, even if they sincerely want to do so.
-
Show this thread
-
2/ If they have a strong position, an interlocutor may express *their* opposing strong position. But that falls into the "debate me" trap -- which affects them both. The string of arguments necessary to even bridge the divide almost always exceeds time & interest.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
3/ Both can walk away thinking, "my beliefs about my counterpart *and* the belief in question have been confirmed." That tendency is common. But, agenda power means you set the starting point which shapes the trajectory. So influential people have greater exposure to this effect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
4/ Lots of bad actors use this structure deliberately. E.g., Ben Shapiro sets inane starting points all the time, and then banks on the safe bet that his followers won't follow the bread crumbs to other positions because it depends on a series of successful repositioning.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
5/ But, I really do think there is an under-appreciated amount of influencers who do this unintentionally, especially on social media. The more participants in a conversation -- which influence generates implicitly -- the more ridged boundaries appear, amplifying the effect.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.