facebook-pixel

Commentary: What that yanny-or-laurel meme can teach us about political conversations

For some reason, we are always shocked when we realize that someone may be hearing or seeing something differently than we are.

Brianna Rosier

The other night I played an audio clip to a friend and asked her what she heard. We both heard the word “laurel.” I told my friend that some people were hearing the word “yanny.” She quickly expressed disbelief in the idea.

This reaction mirrors the reactions of many on the internet who are adamant that the word they hear on the recording is the accurate one. The whole situation is not unlike “the dress” meme a few years back. Both memes can be explained by science, but friends, family and acquaintances love to argue about them. Some may see these memes as just a spark for a good-humored argument, but I suggest they can give us insight into our current political conversations.

For some reason, we are always shocked when we realize that someone may be hearing or seeing something differently than we are. It can feel alarming because it may suggest that our senses are the ones that are failing. This not only happens with our physical senses but also our feelings and thoughts.

Individuals taking in the same sensory input, let’s say a painting or a song, often have distinct impressions and perspective of that input. If this happens with sensory inputs, surely it is the same with informational inputs. For example, two people who are given the same information about guns may come out differently on how they feel about gun control because their brains have been shaped by their own individual experiences.

Certainly the idea that we all experience the world differently is not a novel idea, but perhaps how we react to the varying experiences of others has changed. Conversations about political issues and ideology are crucial to forming solutions to serious problems our country faces. However, the conversations can dissolve into quarrels about whose perspective is right, reflecting the same kind of quarrels we have over inconsequential memes.

This is particularly problematic in the context of political topics because, from my observation, these arguments do not result in problem-solving and often discourage those involved to engage in political speech in the future.

How can we prevent ourselves from falling into this easy trap that is so common in our world of memes, “likes” and “comments?” First, we must constantly remind ourselves that everyone is perceiving the world through brains shaped by experiences different than ours. We must be especially careful not to dismiss the experiences of others as their opinions. While our experiences are what shape our opinions, they are not one in the same. Opinions are malleable and can be changed, while our experiences are an unchangeable, inherent part of our beings.

Second, when engaging in political conversations, particularly those which are challenging and divisive, it is helpful to learn about the background of the person expressing the opinion. Instead of automatically labeling someone as ignorant or uninformed in their view, respectfully ask how she came to her conclusion.

Finally, though it is easy to point out flaws in reasoning of the opposing view, instead try presenting your experiences and then move the conversation forward. You can do this by asking, “What do you think would be a good solution that would address both our concerns?”

Perhaps we won’t come up with solutions to all our problems over dinner table, but it allows us to look at problems from different angles, sparking the creativity to solve those problems. Mostly importantly our political conversations will no longer be identical to our discussions about memes.

Brianna Rosier

Brianna Rosier is a a law student at Brigham Young University who enjoys reading, playing soccer and watching Netflix.