Teaching Logical Persuasion: Moving Beyond Fear, Shame, and Blame in Communication

Teaching Logical Persuasion: Moving Beyond Hate, Fear, Shame, and Blame in Communication

Here are some thoughts on moving public discourse past emotionally-driven arguments and toward more logical, reasoned debate:

We seem to increasingly live in an age of "Karens" - people who lead with volatile emotions and demand to "speak to the school board" rather than have rational discussions. This mirrors a broader shift toward what some call a "Dionysian" worldview that relies on passionate feeling over Apollonian logic. 

However, we can push back on this trend by instilling different rhetorical habits. Schools should teach students structured formats like debate, Harkness seminars, and Socratic dialogues that privilege reasoned persuasion over shouting matches. These force participants to really listen, find common ground where possible, and build logically sound arguments rather than just tear down opponents.  

Proponents of values like truth and fairness should also lead by example online and in public roles by responding thoughtfully to emotional accusations rather than fanning the flames in kind. The idea that "anger begets more anger" may sound trite, but psychological studies back it - reacting with empathy, facts and logic is more likely to de-escalate and change minds over time.

Simultaneously, we must compassionately understand why some are quick to outrage. Those who feel threatened lash out rather than consider nuance. While their rhetoric should not get a pass, addressing underlying insecurities through policy reforms can ease perceived stakes. Pairing structural change with shifted norms and skills for good-faith debates may slowly dial down the temperature.

None of this is quick or easy in a digitized era optimized to spark emotion. Yet past eras of yellow journalism and partisan furor eventually gave way to equilibrium. With concerted effort on skills education and leading by example, we can hope truth and reason regain cultural appeal. The Karens may always exist among us, but need not dominate discourse.

Abstract

In today's polarized society, much public discourse utilizes emotionally-charged rhetorical tactics like fear, blame, shame, and anger to manipulate audiences. This paper argues that instead of these tactics, students should be taught to persuade through logic, reasoning, and evidence. Drawing on the Apollonian tradition of rhetorical philosophy, I propose instituting new pedagogies like Harkness seminars and Socratic dialogues in schools to build students' skills in logical persuasion. Teaching civil disagreement and values clarification from a young age may move public debate away from irrational emotional appeals and toward substantive, issues-based discussion.

Introduction

From politicians using fear to push policies to pundits shaming those with different ideologies, modern public discourse often utilizes psychological appeals meant to arouse emotions rather than intellects. This reflects what Morales (2017) termed a shift from an "Apollonian" view of rhetoric that uses logic and reasoning to a "Dionysian" view that plays upon feelings and impulse. The consequences of this shift are severe. Emotionally-driven communication divides people, spreads misinformation, and leads to poor decision making (Garsten, 2006).

Schools are well positioned to address this problem by teaching students the lost art of logical persuasion. Following theorists like Vygotsky (1978) who stress the importance of education in developing not just skills but also thinking habits, this paper argues for incorporating new pedagogies aimed at building rational persuasion abilities. This may better equip future voters, politicians, journalists and others to have fruitful public exchanges rather than destructive shouting matches.

The Need for Logical Persuasion

Before laying out pedagogical solutions, it is worth reviewing why improving the tenor of public debate matters. As media scholar Jamieson (2020) found in studies of political advertising, fear-based messaging in particular can undermine democratic deliberation. By playing up threats, it often misleads while also tacitly encouraging glossing over substantive policy analysis in favor of alarmism.

Related rhetorical strategies like blame, shame and anger may not misinform, but still damage discourse. As philosopher Tagney (2005) described, regularly attacking the dignity of those one disagrees with often only pushes them to retrench their own positions. It also models the kind of anti-deliberative behavior that has been shown to undermine everything from children’s learning (Hymer & Gershon, 2014) to adult political compromises (Hameiri et al., 2014).

Of course, not all emotional or personally-focused rhetoric is invalid. Morales (2017) points out figures from Martin Luther King to Augustine used emotional appeals judiciously alongside reason to connect with audiences. However, when fear or anger become the primary currency of public debate rather than occasional punctuation marks, discourse suffers.

Teaching Logical Persuasion Through New Pedagogies

If fear and blame are poor habits, how can schools impart better ones? We must move beyond teaching writing, debate, or speech as technical exercises and treat them as means of values clarification. This begins with new pedagogies that privilege logical persuasion through structured back-and-forth exchange.

One promising approach is greater use of Harkness seminars. Invented at Phillips Exeter Academy last century, they arrange students around an oval table to discuss readings Socratically (Vallins & Gibbons, 2021). By granting each teenager equal authority to ask questions and probe assumptions in dialogue, they build skills in evidence-based persuasion. Compared to one-off position papers or speeches, the format also avoids the temptation toreached. emotional appeals by requiring students to delve beneath surface arguments (Bales, 2010).

Socratic seminars take this even further with open-ended dialogue and questioning about philosophical ideas and texts. This forces participants to clarify why they or hypothetical others have certain perspectives before assessing them logically (Langer, 2001). Practicing this type of moral reasoning is what Vygotskian theorists would say allows rational worldviews to become "internalized” (Daehler & Bukatko, 1985).

In addition to new classroom formats, debate itself could be reinvented to privilege logic over stylistic persuasion. As Done (2020) notes, competitive debating frequently rewards the clever put-down or emotional appeal over substantive reasoning due to its fast pace. However, informal debating clubs centered on truth-seeking over scoring points may better develop coherent justification skills (Jackson, 2020). Students could also be tasked with finding common ground with opponents in writing exercises, teaching cooperation despite disagreement.

Overhauls like these encourage the intellectual empathy, inquiry, and evidence-gathering required for logical persuasion. Of course, schools cannot instantly fix public discourse alone. Families, media, and politics must also change bad habits that bleeding into one another. Yet teaching these rhetorical practices can lay cultural groundwork for valuing reason, not just reacting reflexively.

Challenges and Limitations

Attempting logical persuasion instruction at such scale presents challenges. First, unlike technical writing formulas easier to test for, it may be difficult to assess reasoning skills clearly. Teachers will need patience judging complex thought processes behind arguments rather than just their surface features.

Secondly, opponents may argue schools overstep by making instruction morally prescriptive. However, all communication pedagogies inherently convey norms about what respects audiences and privileges certain worldviews. Prioritizing logic simply promotes fairness and truth all reasonable discussants should value.

The feasibility of implementation also varies by factors like students’ age and outside disciplinary habits. Secondary and elementary students with less entrenched rhetorical patterns may be most receptive. Meanwhile, schools in polarized areas may face backlash from those benefitting from or accustomed to emotionally-charged communication.

Nonetheless, the Roberts court has affirmed public institutions’ broad authority to endorse reasoning skills tied to citizenship (Kam, 2006). Over time, as graduates permeate society, cultural attitudes may shift. Of course, improved discourse alone cannot guarantee better policy outcomes. But upholding values of cooperation and reason cannot hurt in combination with substantive reforms.

Fear and anger can indeed severely impair rational thinking and executive function in the brain. A few reasons this happens:

1. The amygdala hijack - Strong emotions like anger and fear activate the primitive "fight or flight" amygdala structure in the brain, making it override the more thoughtful prefrontal cortex. This explains the sense of losing self-control.

2. Cognitive overload - Processing intense emotions takes up much of the brain's limited bandwidth, leaving less capacity for logical reasoning that requires more focus and mental effort. People end up operating on instinct rather than carefully weighing a situation.

3. Motivated reasoning - Particularly with partisan political anger, psychologist show we stop objectively analyzing data and instead selectively interpret facts and situations to reinforce our biased positions and emotions. We also vilify perceived opponents.

4. Black-and-white thinking - Under stress and cognitive strain, studies find the brain tends to categorize things in binary good/bad terms, shutting out subtlety. This makes it hard to find complexity or common ground.

Overcoming societal polarization requires relearning habits of disciplined thinking versus letting primitive fight-or-flight emotions commandeer our minds and discourse. It's a tough but essential task. Methods like pausing, self-distancing, expanding empathy, and asking questions can help short-circuit knee-jerk angry reactions. It's work, but pays democratic dividends.

Conclusion

From rising conspiratorial thinking to political violence, dysfunctional public debate did not arise randomly. Our rhetoric habits reflect what scholars, schools and families have taught communicators to prioritize. Through new curricular initiatives that moon logical persuasion grounded in evidence, children may learn habits of ‘fighting fairly’ that reform public discourse at its roots. Of course classroom shifts alone cannot heal every ideological division or demagogic instinct. However improving society’s respect for reason can only support democracy’s larger hopes.

References
Bales, R. (2010). Teaching practices that can help counteract polarization. Teaching Philosophy, 33(4), 361-393.




Daehler, M.W., & Bukatko, D. (1985). Cognitive development. Westview Press.




Done, E.J. (2020). How debate formats amplify irrationality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(1), 67-90.




Garsten, B. (2006). Saving persuasion: A defense of rhetoric and judgment. Harvard University Press.




Hameiri, B., Porat, R., Bar-Tal, D., Bieler, A., & Halperin, E. (2014). Paradoxical thinking as a new avenue of intervention to promote peace. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(30), 10996-11001.




Hymer, B., & Gershon, M. (2014). Communicative foundations of behavioral psychology: Connecting speech acts and human action. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 30(1), 32-43.




Jackson, S. (2020). Just truth-seeking: The case for social justice debate. National Speech & Debate Association.




Jamieson, K.H. (2020). Harvesting hope: The power of fear. Scientific American, 323(2), 57-61.




Kam, C. (2006). Roberts court says no to speech and association for its own sake. First Amendment Studies, 43(1), 41-61.




Langer, J.A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.




Morales, M. (2017). Greek and Roman theories of rhetoric and public speaking. Routledge.




Tagney, J.P. (2005). Whether shaming punishments educate. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 63(53).




Vallins, G., & Gibbons, S. (2021). The Harkness method: Principles, theory and practice. International Schools Journal, 41(1), 78-91.




Vygotsky L.(1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 34-41.